ArticleBMJ public health2024
Assessing time requirements of two models of SARS-CoV-2 screening and testing in routine healthcare services in Kenya and Cameroon: a descriptive study.
Article in BMJ public health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05382130 (INTEGrating Rapid Antigen TEsting for SARS-CoV-2 in Maternal, Neonatal and Child Health, HIV and Tuberculosis Services in Cameroon and Kenya), which is not on this map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
INTEGrating Rapid Antigen TEsting for SARS-CoV-2 in Maternal, Neonatal and Child Health, HIV and Tuberculosis Services in Cameroon and Kenya: A Cluster Randomized Trial of Two Models
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
abstractIntroduction: Incorporating SARS-CoV-2 antigen-detecting rapid diagnostic tests (Ag-RDTs) into routine care settings can facilitate efficient case identification and management in low-resource settings. We assessed the time required to complete SARS-CoV-2 screening and Ag-RDT testing in maternal, neonatal and child health (MNCH), HIV and tuberculosis clinics in selected facilities in Kenya and Cameroon. Methods: We conducted a descriptive, time-motion analysis comparing SARS-CoV-2 screening and testing through standard-of-care 'screen-and-test' (ST) and 'test-all' (TA) models. Study staff observed and documented time in minutes taken by healthcare workers to provide SARS-CoV-2 services. Time taken per model was compared using the Wilcoxon rank-sum (Mann-Whitney) or Kruskal-Wallis test. Results: A total of 116 observations of SARS-CoV-2 screening and testing using Ag-RDTs were conducted. The overall time spent on SARS-CoV-2 activities for clients was a median of 34 min (IQR: 25, 41) for ST sites and 21 min (IQR: 15, 27) at TA sites, p=0.001. Screening took a median time of 3 min (IQR: 2, 7) at ST sites. Among activities observed, test processing took the longest at 19 min (IQR: 17, 21) in ST sites versus 16 min (IQR: 15, 18.5) in TA sites, p=0.001. Conclusions: SARS-CoV-2 screening and testing services in routine healthcare services took slightly longer in the ST model compared with the TA model, with the majority of additional time needed for sample processing/testing in both models. However, in high-volume clinics, the additional 21 min of personnel and client time needed to test every attendee may not be feasible compared with the 34 min of additional time needed for testing only eligible attendees. When considering the model to use, clinic workload and human resource availability need to be considered to manage the time required for providing SARS-CoV-2 services. Trial registration number: NCT05382130 17 May 2022.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.